Photograph Source: Sdkb – CC BY-SA 4.0
“Words of advice for President Donald Trump as he tries to extricate himself from the mess of the Iran war: Just stop talking. Let America’s overwhelming military and economic power do the work. Job one is still to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and I’m all for the use of selective military power to get that done. If Iran keeps obstructing the strait, it invites a continuing military response” (David Ignatius, The Washington Post, July 14, 2026, Opinion)
For the past few decades, Ignatius has been an apologist for the Pentagon’s use of force, the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of covert action, and Israel’s aggressive use of military power to secure its sovereignty. Once again, the United States is faced with a difficult geopolitical challenge of its own making, and once again—like Ignatius—politicians and pundits argue it will simply take more military power for the United States to achieve its misbegotten objectives.
Ignatius has been a reliable stenographer in recording and repeating U.S. optimism regarding various peace plans that involve Israeli and U.S. national security interests. When Trump said in May that a “peace deal is near,” Ignatius echoed the president. In June, Trump and Ignatius trumpeted their optimism once again. Even the New York Times’ leading Cold Warrior, Ross Douthat, understands that the war with Iran is a “folly and a snare.”
Ignatius has been similarly optimistic about Trump’s so-called “peace plans” for Israel and the Palestinians as well as for Russia and Ukraine. Late last year, he praised Trump’s’ “hardball negotiating tactics” and predicted that a “deal seems to be getting closer” between Russia and Ukraine. He even believed that Trump was willing to extend an “Article 5-like” mutual security guarantee for Ukraine.
Neither Trump nor Ignatius saw the diplomatic and geopolitical contradiction in offering a nuclear deal to Saudi Arabia at the same time the United States was trying to stop Iran from trying to “procure or develop nuclear weapons.” (See Paragraph 8 of the Memorandum of Understanding.) Ignatius has never pointed out that any reference to a nuclear enrichment capability for the Saudis merely gives the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps greater incentive to maintain a capability for itself.
Ignatius ignores the international opposition to the U.S.-Israeli war and lectures that “it’s time for global partners to join in an international coalition to keep the strait open.” He favors “military escorts for commercial ships for as long as necessary” and urges Trump to “collect a contribution from China when President Xi Jinping visits in September.” His wishes remain the father to his optimistic thoughts.
Meanwhile, Ignatius blithely tells the Iranians that they “need to think realistically about their options and resolve their internal differences.” And if they don’t, Ignatius says that the “Iranian regime is on a one-way street to an eventual demise, however long that takes.” This is what Trump administration spokesmen keep telling us.
Ignatius fails to understand that the United States didn’t plan for protracted war against Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran. War planners typically plan for short wars because their civilian leaders known the negative political consequences of long ones. Trump signed off on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s pursuit of regime change because he thought a military victory would be so quick and efficient that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps would not have time to mount a challenge to the U.S.-Israeli attack, let alone devise a scheme for closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz.
Trump had no idea of the strategic and tactical challenges he faced in Iran. He ignored a CIA director who dismissed the idea of regime change, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who warned about the logistical and kinetic difficulties associated with steady use of scarce air defense and cruise missile weaponry. Secretary of Defense Hegseth and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Caine haven’t held a joint press conference in the past three months because they have no way to explain their difficulties in dealing with questions on the war with Iran.
Trump’s problems with Iran are reminiscent of Russian and Israeli problems with Ukraine and Hamas, respectively. In 2022, President Vladimir Putin foresaw a short war with Ukraine, and even ordered his general officers to pack their dress uniforms for the victory parade in Kyiv. Fast forward, and we find that the Russian battle with Ukraine has already outlasted the Soviet battle with the Germans in World War II. The same could be said for Netanyahu who never respected Palestinian forces, and anticipated a short and manageable conflict with Hamas.
There are no good ideas out there about ending any of these conflicts, but continued military bombardment of Iran, Ukraine, and Gaza does not appear to provide solutions.
